launch

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key side effect: remote SSH execution on real targets. However, it omits any mention of the confirm_token parameter or potential destructive/privileged aspects, leaving significant transparency gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear parameter breakdown that is easy to scan. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool launches ROS files and has an output schema, but the description lacks explanation of confirm_token, prerequisites (e.g., running roscore), or constraints. It is adequate for basic usage but not fully complete for a tool with remote execution and a confirmation token.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful context for package, launch_file, and args with examples and REQUIRED tags. However, schema coverage is 0%, and the confirm_token parameter is completely omitted from the description, so it does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Launch a ROS launch file'. It also differentiates modes ('local roslaunch in sim mode, SSH to vehicle NUC on real targets'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_launches and kill_launch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context of when the tool operates locally vs. via SSH, but does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools. Since sibling actions (list, kill, echo) are clearly distinct, usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.